Math Vs. Language

“Can physicists produce insights about language that have eluded linguists and English professors? That possibility was put to the test this week when a team of physicists published a paper drawing on Google’s massive collection of scanned books. They claim to have identified universal laws governing the birth, life course and death of words.

“The paper marks an advance in a new field dubbed ‘Culturomics’: the application of data-crunching to subjects typically considered part of the humanities.” {From: Culturomics Looks at the Birth and Death of Words – WSJ.com. | Via: Slashdot}

Well, all right “Culturnomics” (there’s a word that I hope dies soon–you’d think scientist could come up with something better). Let’s see what you can do with your algorithms. But before you go around saying “This explains EVERYTHING!” just remember that they used to say that about evolutionary psychology and fractals, too.

Totally Serial

In this recent update on the progress of his Red Shirts auction, Scalzi mentions, in passing, his distaste for the “serial comma.” Seeing as how the conflict between those for or against the serial comma is sometimes extravagantly bitter and dogmatic, it was a pleasure to see that Scalzi was able to broach the topic without the usual attack-dog demagoguery that one so often sees associated with it. Three cheers for civility! And, of course, I respectfully disagree.

Wait, that’s not quite right. What I mean to say is that, actually, I have no strong opinion one way or the other when it comes to the serial comma–but I shall also never stop using them.

I really do not care if people choose not to use the serial comma–as long as they express their ideas clearly, I am willing to forgive all sorts of non-standard usage and punctuation from people.  Arguing the finer points of punctuation can be fun, but often it devolves into a hurtful waste of time.

But I will always use the Oxford comma, because that is how I was taught, and it’s been a part of my writing for almost my entire life. Thus, it is quite a pain in the ass to have to remember to remove it every time it ends up in whatever sentence I currently happen to be typing. I expect the same is true of those who were trained to never use the serial comma, and I fully and freely encourage those folks to continue along that line, because writing is already full of little tics and habits for which one must constantly be aware. Is that the right “there?” Should that be “its” or “it’s?” Who or whom? I’ll be damned if I’m going to add another rung to my personal Writer’s Ladder of Neuroses.

Is that irresponsible of me? Some would say that the serial comma is a bad habit, like spitting or swearing, and thus should be rooted out even if requires a grueling mental effort. But I would say not. It may be controversial, but it is not in any official sense, wrong. Some legitimate publishers, publications, and even a few writers stand behind the serial comma, even if many others do not. It is accepted usage, however irritating some may find it. And frankly, that’s enough of a reason for me to avoid having to put in the work of forcing myself to use commas differently.

The only thing that might possibly move me to reform is the unwavering peer pressure of those who see the serial comma as evidence of an uncultured, uneducated, ignorant writer. Well, aside from the fact that such labels do not frighten me in the least, the truth is that the people who are most likely to apply them will always find a pretext to dismiss you no matter what you do. You can ditch the extra comma, if you like, but they’ll just start bugging you about starting sentences with “and” or “but” or something equally trivial. It’s not a battle worth fighting. If they are so wedded to their own sense of superiority, let them have it.

Of course, I don’t write professionally, so my livelihood is not tied to whether or not editors or readers can’t stand how I write, so I can afford to not care and be lazy. Wheeeooooo!

Well, It Sort Of Makes This Noise…

If there’s one word that definitely doesn’t describe me, it is “concise.” I am wordy, loquacious, gregarious, and fond of repetition. I tend to talk a lot. I got a website years ago precisely because even after spending all day talking to people, I still had more stuff that I wanted to say, and I needed a place to wallow in my own crapulent grandiosity. To put it another way: I am not into the whole brevity thing, man.

This is what I do for fun. I write around and around subjects, often, as regular readers may have noticed, without ever actually getting to a point. It’s a hobby of mine, and it’s something for which I wish I had more time. Still, since it’s all a massive lark, there’s no harm done. I think it was Larry Niven who once wrote, “If you have nothing to say, say it any way you like.” Done and done! Well, overdone, really. But this is what I do to relax. Work is a different matter.

Like most people, when I am at work I don’t have time to luxuriate in the rich variety of the English language, because generally people are coming to me with problems that need to be fixed in a timely fashion. Generally, all at once. It’s one of those high-pressure, get pulled in several directions at once, sorts of jobs. It’s not an important job, not in the slightest. It’s just a very, very hectic one.

I deal with people every day who tend to be very vague in their communications. I don’t blame them; they are undergoing trying circumstances. But, if something’s gone wrong, and you’re not sure what it is, it would be better for all involved if you just said that. I mean, literally said, “There’s something wrong–I don’t know what.” That would be a vast improvement over the page and a half of vague talking around that sometimes accompanies a request for help.

We all do it, I think. Or at least I do. When I take my car in to get fixed, for example, I can’t stop myself from spouting off an interminable monologue that doesn’t contain any more factual information than could be summed up in a single sentence: “It’s broken, and won’t go.” I do this because my deluded brain thinks that my long-winded, inexpert analysis is somehow helping. I do this even though the broken car in question is right there, sitting in front of the mechanic, and all I’m actually doing is stopping him from figuring out what the problem is by actually examining the thing that we’re talking about. And if you think that’s bad, you should see me a the doctor’s office. I have sometimes launched into lengthy, panicky speeches of no value other than the fact that they were beautifully content-free.

What’s interesting is that if you pay attention hard enough, you can spot these sorts of vague, entirely empty statements everywhere. In normal life, they are merely annoying. In business, they are frustrating wastes of precious, precious time. When cornered by someone who insists on being garrulously vague, you can’t help but think, “Dear god, I hope there’s a point somewhere in there.” And when it turns out there isn’t, it feels like something has been stolen from you.

That’s why I propose a new linguistic efficiency measure. Let’s boil this all these all of these futile diatribes into a single, easy word. That way, when we need to communicate with someone the fact that we don’t have any facts at all, we can save the time we ordinarily would have set aside for aimless burbling and re-purpose it for something more useful, like lunch. I suggest we use… “thingy.”

I thought about using “stuff,” but that’s already a useful word that I wouldn’t want to ruin, and anyway, it can also be used as a verb, which could be confusing. Well, more confusing. I also considered suggesting a kind of Tim Allen-esque grunt, but I think that’s trademarked, and I wouldn’t be able to respond to the resulting lawsuit with a straight face. Thingy, however is kind of a real word, but it’s mostly absurd, which is right in my wheelhouse.

Imagine the scene: When the copier repair person has arrives at your office, you can dispense with that whole rigamarole in which you attempt to describe what you think the problem is to an experienced, expert technician, who nods politely, all while not actually getting around to fixing the problem because he or she is too busy listening to you completely fail to describe it, using as many words as you possibly can. Instead, you can merely point at the offending piece of office equipment that needs his or her attention, and confidently shout, “Thingy!” Because the wordy description and the word “thingy” contain about the same amount of useful information, you see.

Think of the time you’ll save! (Which the repair person will still bill you for–sorry!)

This Time, Pronouns Are Personal!

As this exhaustive post at the Awl points out, the Sun will probably explode before we English-speakers ever come up with a widely accepted, gender-neutral pronoun. (But it’s worth clicking the link to learn about how we’ve tried.)

Though I must admit I don’t know why people haven’t been swayed by my suggestion that we use the word “it” as a genderless pronoun. A person might not be a man, or possibly not a woman–but all people are things, right?

Bad English

“Gobbledygook-gobbledegook-gobbledegoo. This Friday the Plain English Campaign celebrates Plain English Day with its 30th Awards ceremony. Prizes to win include the Foot In Mouth Award, for the most baffling comment(s) made by a public figure.” {From: Plastic: Plain English Day}

The creative use of language to lie one’s socks off without technically lying is annoying, but also stunning and difficult to pull off.

Grammar Can Be Fun?

As any frequent reader of this blog may be aware, my grasp of grammar (and spelling, and punctuation) is a bit weak. Thankfully, Lifehacker has posted links to  several sites that make strengthening one’s language skills a lot more fun. Will I actually be using any of them? Hmm… probably not, but only because I’m too busy for self-improvement, and I also find that my day to day life goes more smoothly when other people have no idea what I’m talking about.

 

We. We? We!

“Worms, or more specifically tapeworms, figure prominently in we- related humor. The earliest known joke to combine parasites and pronouns comes from George Horatio Derby, a humorist from California who assumed the pen name John Phoenix. ‘I do not think I have a tapeworm,’ he wrote in 1855, ‘therefore I have no claim whatever to call myself “we,” and I shall by no means fall into that editorial absurdity.’” {From NYTimes.com | Via Bookninja}

I must confess that I have used the “editorial we” in the past, but only because I was attempting to be deliberately annoying. (Not much has changed.) Also: George, I hope you’re okay.

At Least You’re Not a Brittle, Bitter Person

“Incensed by a ‘no tresspassing’ sign, Jeff Deck launched a cross-country trip to right grammatical wrongs. He enlisted a friend, Benjamin D. Herson, and together they erased errant quotation marks, rectified misspellings and cut unnecessary possessive apostrophes. The Great Typo Hunt is the story of their crusade.” { from Slashdot }

I too often find myself incensed by seemingly piddly irritants, but I’ve never had the wherewithal to actually pursue my aggravations cross-country. It sounds… nice.